We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Oral Health Prev Dent 15 (2017), No. 3     7. July 2017
Oral Health Prev Dent 15 (2017), No. 3  (07.07.2017)

Page 207-214, doi:10.3290/j.ohpd.a38523, PubMed:28674701


Efficacy of Three In-Office Dentin Hypersensitivity Treatments
Idon, Paul I. / Esan, Temitope A. / Bamise, Cornelius T.
Purpose: This study assessed the comparative efficacy of three in-office treatment agents in patients presenting with dentin hypersensitivity (DH) at a university teaching hospital.
Materials and Methods: A randomised, controlled study was conducted to compare the efficacy of Gluma desensitiser, Pro-Relief and Copal F in relieving the pain of DH. In 68 subjects with 508 hypersensitive teeth, the agents and placebo (distilled water) were applied to 127 hypersensitive teeth each. At baseline, the pain of DH to tactile and evaporative stimuli was measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and verbal rating scale (VRS). Post-application assessment was carried out at 10 min, 1 week, 2 and 4 weeks.
Results: The mean difference in VAS between baseline and post-treatment periods significantly increased for all the desensitising agents (p < 0.05) with both tactile and air-blast stimuli, except for the placebo. Gluma desensitiser had the highest mean difference at 10 min (3.7 ± 1.8) and 4 weeks (5.4 ± 2.3) for tactile and air-blast stimuli, respectively. However, using the VAS, no statistical significance was noted in the mean differences between the agents. With the application of Gluma desensitiser, a significantly higher number of teeth had no pain at 4 weeks using the VRS.
Conclusion: Gluma desensitiser can be suggested as an appropriate desensitising agent for in-office treatment of DH.

Keywords: Copal fluoride, dentin hypersensitivity, efficacy, Gluma desensitizer, Pro-Argin, Pro-Relief